New Writ

Ordered,
	That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituencyof Ealing, Southall, in the room of Piara Singh Khabra, deceased .—[Jacqui Smith.]

New Writ

Ordered,
	That Mr. Speaker do his issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Sedgefield in the room of the Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham .—[Jacqui Smith.]

Annette Brooke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What assistance is available to parents who are not seeking work or training, but whose children would particularly benefit from good early-years provision, which would help them perhaps break out of the spiral of poverty within the family?

Parmjit Dhanda: Those matters were considered recently as part of the Ajegbo report, of which my hon. Friend may be aware. He and I are very much part and parcel of British life these days, but he is right and, following our review, the slave trade, the British empire, the holocaust and the two world wars will all be essential elements of the key stage 3 curriculum. That is the right way forward: to learn about British life and our history, but also about migration and immigration in the context of the slave trade. It is important that wedo so.

Jim Knight: Last year79 per cent. of pupils achieved the target level 4 or more in English and 76 per cent. did so in mathematics. This represents a significant improvement in the standards of literacy and numeracy in schools compared with, say, 1997 when fewer than two thirds of pupils reached the target level in either subject.
	Under this Government, schools in Tewkesbury,the hon. Gentleman's constituency, have made a14 percentage point improvement for 11-year-olds and a 16 percentage point increase in maths at the same level.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for that response, which demonstrates how good teaching in Tewkesbury is. However, is it not the case that the increase in standards over the past few years has rather plateaud, and the children who are losing out are those from poorer backgrounds? Given that the previous Prime Minister was elected on the pledge of being tough on not only crime but the causes of crime, rather than looking to build more prisons, would it not be better to tackle the problems that are experienced by the poorest members of society who fail at 11, go on to play truant and then go on to prison? The prisons are full of people who are illiterate or innumerate so, after 10 years of Labour Government, should they not be doing rather better?

Jim Knight: I am not the prisons Ministers—right now anyway.  [ Laughter. ] I will therefore not comment on much of that.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about plateauing, but he may not know that, in 1996, the National Foundation for Educational Research reported that there had been no improvement in primary standards for 50 years. We have seen significant improvements in the last 10 years that we should celebrate, and the new Prime Minister in his Mansion house speech last week talked about measures that he wants to see us implement in the future to attack some of the problems regarding the children who still need to improve and the narrowing of attainment gaps around income, ethnicity and gender. For example, he talked about the new learning credit that will mean that those on low income receive the support that they need.

Barry Sheerman: Before my hon. Friend becomes prisons Minister or something else, will he ensure that further research is done on not only the improved literacy and numeracy results, but on the really troubling problems in some areas of selective education where grammar schools exist and the overall package of education is not very good for the entirety of the population? In fact, many of the struggling young people mentioned by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) do very badly in those areas.

Nick Gibb: In spite of the moderate improvements in standards in primary schools over the last decade, which the Minister referred to and which I acknowledge, 40 per cent. of 11-year-olds still leave primary school without having mastered the basics of reading, writing and maths. Synthetic phonics—[Hon. Members: "Hooray!"] They expected me to say that. Synthetic phonics will clearly help to improve literacy, but the international survey into maths, the TIMSS—the trends in international mathematics and science study—survey, showed that only 5 per cent. of 14-year-olds in the UK achieved the advanced level in the TIMSS mathematics assessment compared with 44 per cent. of 14-year-olds in Singapore. Does the Minister share my view that, having started to roll back the failed progressive approaches to teaching reading, we need to look closely at how maths is taught in primary schools to ensure that it follows tried and tested methods and international best practice?

Jim Knight: The Prime Minister is ahead of the hon. Gentleman. He has already announced the every child counts programme, which involves direct intervention to build on the sorts of things that we have learned have been successful with the every child a reader programme and to apply those same things to maths. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that even one of our harshest critics, Professor Alan Smithers, acknowledges that at primary school level our best improvement is in maths. The hon. Gentleman quoted some perhaps slightly misleading statistics. In maths, the figure is up 17 points, meaning that 76 per cent. are reaching the national standard at 11. That is an impressive improvement given the plateauing for50 years that I talked about earlier.

Jim Knight: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his detailed work in this area and for relating that strongly to his constituency. He makes sure that I keep an eye on Nottingham and I will continue to do so in looking at the roll-out. I do think that we can just get on with implementing the SEAL programme in secondary schools. I have made sure that we have increased to20 per cent. the number of secondary schools that will have support for SEAL in the first year starting in September and I want to see that accelerate as quickly as possible.

Jim Cunningham: How much he has allocated for the provision of individual tutoring for looked-after children in2007-08.

Alan Johnson: The White Paper that was published last week, "Care Matters: Time for Change", sets out an ambitious agenda for improving the lives of children in care, with an additional investment of more than£305 million. Its proposals include improving theeducation of children in care through a £500 educational allowance for each child in care falling behind at school, putting the designated teacher on a statutory footingto improve provision in schools, appointing virtualschool heads to oversee the children's education, and a £2,000 university bursary. In relation to individual tutoring, aside from the progression pilot that is taking place in 10 local authority areas, the HSBC Global Education Trust announced a £1 million allocation for one-to-one tutoring for children in care as part of the White Paper launch.

Sarah Teather: Further to the answer that the Secretary of State gave a momentago to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) about kinship carers, when the Green Paper was published, the Secretary of State suggested that he would be examining improving the allowances and support for such carers. However, although the White Paper acknowledges the financial pressures on grandparents, especially, it is rather vague about giving a commitment to improving allowances and on any specifics of the support that he would recommend. Is he still committed to improving that package and, if so, how will he do that?

Alan Johnson: Yes, I am. I am sorry that that is a bit vague in the White Paper. I hope that it will become clearer as we take the policy through because it is important. Grandparents, in particular, have a huge role to play. As, thankfully, people are healthier and living longer, there is a question of how we can use grandparents to greater effect.
	None of these problems is really to do with money. As Martin Narey, the head of Barnardo's says, this is one of the few areas in which the problem is not cash and finance, but the system. We have put in another £305 million. We will put more money in place to help kinship carers through local authorities so that we get this right. We are spending £2 billion already. The problem is the system, so if extra finance is required, we need to provide that.

Kerry McCarthy: The White Paper says that nearly 10 per cent. of children over the age of 10 are cautioned or convicted of a criminal offence in an average year. Given that, will he tell me what discussions Ministers in the Department have had with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about ensuring continuity of education for children who end up spending a period in custody?

Alan Johnson: As is the case for so many other issues in the White Paper, local authorities have to accept responsibility right the way through. We propose—this will take legislation—that children should remain in care for longer, instead of being pushed out at 16, and that they should be able to stay with adoptive parents until they are 21. In addition, they will have an individual counsellor looking after them until they are 25. On children who are unfortunate enough to go through the criminal justice system, we are talking to colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about how we can co-ordinate action, but it needs to be joined up at local authority level. That is why I say that we could not have taken any of those measures without Every Child Matters; it provides the foundation for us to build on, so that we can properly tackle the issue.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a high level of satisfaction with children's centres. In another piece of research, 90 per cent. of parents were very satisfied, and 9 per cent. were quite satisfied with them. Parents certainly believe that they are getting what they need for their children from children's centres. Language acquisition is an important part of the redevelopment of the early years foundation stage which, as he will know, will be delivered in any setting for an early-years child from nought to five. That focus on communication, literacy and language is a vital part of the need to ensure that children develop those skills and it will enhance their well-being as a whole.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right that that mythis completely erroneous. I agree with the Edge Foundation, which conducted the survey. It said that
	"diplomas should be highly attractive to students of all aptitudes and abilities, including the most able. They should offer a genuine alternative to existing GCSEs and A levels."
	We are investing a lot of money in the new diplomas to allow young people to choose a vocational route that will take them through either to higher education—for example, an engineering degree—or to work. The diplomas will attract talented young people from across the system.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman has moved from slagging off the apprenticeship system to running down the diploma system. He must learn that he is not doing himself or his party any favours by running down the education system and the young people within it.We have implemented a gateway of quality:38,000 students will start those diplomas, and an extra £50 million will go into work force development. Those young people will study towards high quality diplomas involving a combination of practical and academic learning, which will be the envy of countries across the world.

Mike O'Brien: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Questions 21 and 23 together. The questions are identical, and I can imagine why they were tabled, although I think that today is a little bit early.
	The future of the Law Officers will no doubt be decided by the new Prime Minister, and in so far as the Law Officers' advice to Parliament is concerned, by this House. I understand that the Constitutional Affairs Committee is currently considering those issues, and we will read its report with interest.

David Jones: The Solicitor-General will be aware that in his letter of resignation to the outgoing Prime Minister, the Attorney-General referred to "the host of challenges" that he had faced in that office. Does the Solicitor-General agree that those challenges are and have for centuries been inherent in that role and that the best way to deal with them is to meet them head on and to use them as excuses for changing the nature of that office? If so, will he communicate that view to the new Prime Minister?

Andrew Robathan: The Solicitor-General believes, rightly, that Law Officers should be accountable to the Houses of Parliament, particularly to the House of Commons, whereas the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has taken a somewhat different view. We have discussed collective responsibility with the right hon. Lady in the past—she was of course the Solicitor-General's predecessor—and had disagreements. Now that she is deputy leader of the Labour party, chairman of the Labour party and reportedly going to be Leader of the House, whose view does he think may prevail?

Jack Straw: I am the Leader of the House; it is absolutely true. I said last week that I was ready to go on and on and on, and here I am.
	The business for the week commencing 2 July will be as follows:
	Monday 2 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 (Commencement No.2) Order 2007, followed by a motion to approve a European Document relating to global navigation systems.
	Tuesday 3 July—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Access to NHS Services", followed by a debate entitled "Crisis in Pensions". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 4 July—Second Reading of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 5 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill [ Lords].
	Friday 6 July—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing9 July will include:
	Monday 9 July—Estimates [3rd allotted day]. At10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Tuesday 10 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007, followed by Second Reading of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill [ Lords].
	Wednesday 11 July—Opposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 12 July—Remaining stages of the Further Education and Training Bill [ Lords].
	Friday 13 July—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on 12 and 19 July will be:
	Thursday 12 July—A debate on the report fromthe Constitutional Affairs Committee on the implementation of the Carter review of legal aid.
	Thursday 19 July—A debate on the Government response to the all-party parliamentary group report on anti-Semitism.

David Heath: I have not finished.
	We had a valuable statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on flooding, although since then, he has left for warmer climates. I know that there has been increased investment, but the cuts in flood defence spending have been disastrous. The result for many people has been personal catastrophe. May we have a statement from the new Secretary of State on the implications for the once-in-100-years assessments, because they are clearly not correct and we need to revise our flood defences in the light of recent events?
	May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on his position on Iraq? It is important that we know where he stands on that.
	Lastly, I tried to co-operate with the Government last week—I always do, and I am still mulling overthe offer of the Wales Office—but does the Leader of the House seriously believe that it is sensible to ignore the request from the outgoing Secretary of State for International Development for a corruption Bill, when the outgoing Attorney-General has said that there is a need for a change in the offences and when we have one on the Order Paper tomorrow? The Corruption Bill is No. 17 on the list of private Members' Bills, has come through the House of Lords and would satisfy the Government's intentions. Will the Leader of the House instruct his colleagues and the Whips not to shout "Object" tomorrow so that we can make progress on enacting proper anti-corruption legislation in this country?

Jack Straw: And I'll plead guilty—I was worried about my hon. Friend for a second—because I think the hon. Gentleman may be after a job. I made it clear last week that we are a broad church, and I am always happy to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman or anyone else on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I look forward to their seeing the light in due course— [Interruption.] I am trying to be nice to them.
	I apologise to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for not responding to her question about the criminal justice and immigration Bill. She should stop worrying about it. It is a large Bill. It will be properly examined by the House. If it gets its Second Reading, it will go upstairs to be subject to the full Public Bill scrutiny procedure that the House agreed following the Modernisation Committee report—in other words, it has a Select Committee-style hearing for its opening stages. It is also a carry-over Bill. There has been no suggestion whatever within the Government that we are trying to get it through by Prorogation in late October or early November.
	On flooding, I put on the record again our condolences and sorrow in respect of those people who have lost their lives as a result of the flooding, and our huge admiration for those in the fire and rescue services, the armed forces and the police, and the many, many local government and public sector civilian workers, as well as citizens in those areas, who have been working fantastically hard to alleviate the effect of the floods. These floods were literally a once in a century or more event. We do our very best to ensure that there is proper preparation for such events. That has been part of the work of the upgraded civil contingencies secretariat, which was set up a few years ago by one of my successor Home Secretaries.
	Let me deal with funding. Yes, there was a reduction for 2006-07 of £15 million in the Environment Agency's overall flood-risk budget. That was applied to the agency's resource budget, which funds such items as staff costs, operational activities and maintenance. I have been assured that the agency capital budget was not cut, that funding for capital projects for new and improved defences to reduce risk was not affected, and that no current or planned improvement projects were delayed as a result. The reduction has been more than reinstated in the agency's funding for 2007.
	On the Corruption Bill, we have already strengthened anti-corruption measures. We always consider private Members' Bills on their merits, but it does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman on the one hand to criticise the fact that we have now reached a 54th Bill on criminal law and on the other hand to propose a 55th.

Gwyn Prosser: Many of us in the trade union and labour movement have campaigned long and hard for the introduction of a robust corporate manslaughter Act. The sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, a cross-Channel ferry based in Dover,20 years ago gave extra impetus to that campaign. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House confident that the Bill that is being considered again this afternoon will go through all its stages before the end of this Session? Will he talk to his successor to ensure that she does all that she can to make sure that the Bill does not fall?

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, consideration of a Lords message on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill is next on the Order Paper straight after this business. He will also know that issues have been put into the Bill by the other place, particularly in respect of circumstances in which the offences would apply to deaths in custody. Those issues are being considered. Of course we are committed to the legislation; it is our Bill. We are the people who introduced a Bill in respect of corporate manslaughter, and corporate homicide in Scotland.

Jack Straw: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, in a similar spirit, on having asked a rather more comprehensible question than the one he put to the former Prime Minister yesterday? He may like to know that almost the whole of the 1874 Session was spent debating relations between Church and state, and he may want to go back to that; it would be a good new Liberal Democrat project.
	I accepted, and put on the record, that there had been a reduction in the overall flood risk budget by£15 million, but I then went on to say that I had been advised that the capital budget had not been cut, and that funding for capital projects for new and improved defences to reduce risk was not affected, so no current or planned capital improvement projects were delayed as a result. The amount of spending on flood risk management overall has doubled since 1997. Of course, there is always more that we can do and should do, and we take account of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I think the answer I have given him is accurate. If it is not, of course we shall correct it.

Tobias Ellwood: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) about the three tragic deaths, my regiment is serving in southern Iraq. It has only just been deployed there, yet in the first48 hours 15 personnel were wounded, and it receives fatalities of about one a week. Those statistics are unacceptable, so I urge the Leader of the House to accept the fact that we require a statement from the new Prime Minister on long-term strategy for Iraq and, more importantly, a statement from the Defence Secretary about whether we have the right size of force and the right equipment to do the job, before we see that country spiral into civil war.

Jack Straw: I am certainly happy to suggest that the matter be looked at. However, I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, things sometimes go wrong in specific cases, and he and his constituents have clear rights to make a complaint against the police. I am sure that they will do so. Secondly, however, the principle behind that section of the 1988 Act, which was introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in government, is a good one. Indeed, I think that most of us would want it to be used even more whenthe police are clear that uninsured vehicles are being driven around. Typically, those who show social irresponsibility in respect of not insuring their vehicles are also much more likely to show social irresponsibility in everything else.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move,
	That this House insists on disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10, but does not insist on its amendments Nos. 10C and 10D in lieu thereof, and proposes amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d) in lieu of the Lords amendments.
	The other place has for a third time sent to us amendments to the Bill that would extend the new offence to deaths in custody in all circumstances. Hon. Members will be familiar with the Government's position. I do not intend to rehearse this at length, but I do want to place this issue in the wider context of progress on other issues in the Bill and to set out why we are not persuaded to set a timetable for custody.
	Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have always made it clear to hon. Friends and Opposition Members that the Government would listen carefully to arguments to improve the Bill, and we have done so. The Government responded to concerns about the test for liability in the Bill as it was first introduced, we have shown flexibility in terms of the sort of organisations to which the offence applies and extended the Bill to certain unincorporated associations. We have offered real progress on the sort of penalties that will be available against convicted organisations and made provision for an entirely new sort of disposal against corporate bodies—a publicity order.
	When concerns arose about the possible impact of the new offence on prosecutions against individuals on a secondary basis for health and safety offences, we again offered amendments to clarify the position. The Government openly recognised the strength of concern in this House and in the other place on the question of custody, and again offered positive movement. That is not just in terms of a power to extend the new offence—a move that explicitly opens the door to a future extension to custody— but in practical terms. Putting the prison and probation ombudsman on a statutory footing will strengthen the position of that office to provide an independent investigation of deaths in prisons and other forms of custody.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not accept that, and I will say why I think that we need to support the position that we are in. I have accepted the principle of what has been said, and putting the office of prison and probation ombudsman on a statutory footing will strengthen that office.
	Hon. Members will see that, in the criminal justice Bill that was introduced yesterday, we are delivering on our commitment. We will be strengthening the arrangements for decreasing the occurrence of such deaths in the first place through the commitment to strengthening the forum for preventing deaths in custody. That is considerable movement on the Government's part, and it is against that background that this House should measure where we are now. This is not resistance for the sake of it; it is because we genuinely consider that this is as far as the Bill should go at this stage.

Gerry Sutcliffe: That is not the Government's intention. During the debate on deaths in custody, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee and other bodies in the House have made sure that the issue has developed in the way that it has. I am clear that they will continue to ensure that the issue is dealt with. It is my fervent belief that we need to give the prison and probation ombudsman the opportunity to develop his role and we also want to strengthen the forum for preventing deaths in custody. Other issues may flow from those two arrangements and they may affect the issue even further.
	It is not the Government's intention to condone or protect circumstances in which there are serious failings in the management of custody. The issue is about the appropriate application of a new criminal offence. The Bill recognises that there are difficult decisions to be taken about the application of the new offence to the operation of public services. That position was debated at length in proceedings in this House and in the other place. This House has supported excluding the exercise of a number of public responsibilities from the scope of the offence. It is therefore an overstatement to say that equality before the law demands the application of the offence to those in custody. Accountability for the exercise of public functions raises difficult and complex issues. The forums for investigating and holding to account those responsible for public responsibilities, including the management of custody, recognise this.
	The Government have been prepared to meet concerns that the offence should apply to custody by opening the door clearly in the Bill to that being the case. That is a serious acknowledgement of the issues here and accepts clearly the principle of the offence applying. However, this issue must also be seen in the wider context of lifting Crown immunity. Applying the new offence to Government departments brings with it considerable uncertainty. How these bodies discharge their public responsibilities is intimately bound up with wider questions of public policy.
	It is tempting to consider that faults in the management chain and operational matters can be isolated from the organisational context within which they occurred. In practice, that is a difficult distinction to make and, in the exercise of public responsibilities, the systems and processes by which an activity is managed can involve fundamental questions of policy, not least in relation to the allocation of resources. Those matters need to be answered for politically.
	On one view, that is a reason for not lifting Crown immunity or at least never extending the offence beyond the sorts of duties already set out in the Bill. We have taken considerable steps beyond that by accepting in principle the application of the offence to the management of custody. However, there must be an opportunity for Departments, investigators and the courts to become familiar with the concept of criminal liability for Crown bodies in areas such as employer and occupier responsibilities before looking to apply this sort of offence to the discharge of public functions any more widely than the Bill currently allows. That will also provide time for the changes to the ombudsman's powers to become established and for the forum for preventing deaths to be further developed, and time to consider how the wider application of the offence will operate alongside those changes.
	I cannot set out the timetable today and the right approach to acknowledging the uncertainty is to include a power in the Bill to extend the offence. There can be no doubt that Parliament envisaged the application of the offence to custody—the principle of that is accepted, but the exact timing is not. There will be a considerable opportunity to question the Government on the matter: for example, through the Select Committees. The Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have demonstrated their interest so far. Our proposals for putting the prisons and probation ombudsman on a statutory footing include provision for publishing and laying before Parliament various reports. That will provide a new source of information on the management of custody.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful that the Minister has taken on board the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), but is not the reality of the wording that it would be open to the Government to introduce the measure in relation to certain sorts of custody, but not to others—if they were minded to do so? That is how I read the amendment. Clearly, the Lords intended the introduction to apply to all forms of custody. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that that may make some Members a little nervous about the direction in which the Government are going.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. and learned Friend makes an interesting point, although it pushes the bounds of what can be foreseen a little. I am not sure that I wish to encourage his line of reasoning because it might make it even less likely that the Government will extend the corporate manslaughter offence to the Prison Service.
	In the context of prisons, I have always thought that the main scope of the offence was the care delivered in the prison system. However, my hon. and learned Friend makes a perfectly fair point. Someone who was known to be a serious suicide risk might suddenly be thrown out of the prison hospital wing one morning. If no provision had been made for their care after release and the first thing that they did was to throw themselves under a railway train at the nearest station, that could give rise to interesting legal and factual arguments about the possible extension of the duty of care. I accept what my hon. and learned Friend says. From his experience of visiting prisons in his capacity as our prisons and criminal justice spokesman, he knows only too well the worrying fact that an overcrowded Prison Service is poor at delivering care to the most vulnerable.
	That live issue is one of the reasons why we believe that the corporate manslaughter offence should be extended to protect people in custody. The Government appear to have accepted that principle, albeit not without considerable argument, and that was the major concession made by the Minister in one of our ping-pong sessions. However, rather than following the logic of his argument of saying that the Prison Service will need time to prepare for the change, the Minister hides behind the statement that the system will be introduced by statutory instrument as and when the Government think that everything is ready.
	The Government pride themselves on target setting. The old Government—I suspect that the same will be true of the new Government because the new Prime Minister seems to be as wedded to this as anyone—said that they liked targets because they enforced discipline. Ministers have proudly said at the Dispatch Box that the Government will be able to match targets for the implementation of measures. Why, therefore, will not the Minister pick a reasonable target for changing the culture in the Prison Service and elsewhere so that a full assessment can be made of the response to the measure, which, as the Minister concedes, is entirely justified?
	I realise that we are in times of change. The new Prime Minister has a reputation in the press—perhaps it is grossly unfair—of being a little curmudgeonly. Here is his opportunity, with his new vision for Britain, to take a grip of government and make a different stand. I mean that seriously. Conservative Members are looking to him to show leadership on a matter on which there is much cross-party consensus. When the Minister has the opportunity to see the new Prime Minister, I hope that he will point out to him the extent of the disquiet in the House and what we are seeking.
	I am not sure whether we have a new Home Secretary yet, or whether he is moving from ministerial substance into ministerial ectoplasm. However, it appeared that he was a serious impediment to the implementation of the proposals. As he is vanishing into thin air as I speak, this must be a tremendous opportunity—I had rather hoped that the Minister would have been in a position to grasp it with both hands today—for the Government to shift by saying that they accept that such a timetable would be possible. If that happened, we could all congratulate ourselves mutually and go away, which is what I want to happen.
	This might be a little premature. I am conscious that doors are swinging as people go in and out of No. 10 Downing street. There has not been time to present new Ministers with their briefs. The Minister is probably not quite sure what his post will be in24 hours. All that makes life very difficult, but it is all the more reason why we should ensure that this issue is kept live so that we can come back to it next week and the week after. I am confident that the other place, on a cross-party basis, is resolute on this matter and will not let it drop, given that the Government's explanations for their position on the implementation of the amendments have been really incoherent.
	My children are now growing up, but when they were little, they used to engage in distraction when one wished to scold them for doing something wrong. They would introduce a new argument, or something would happen, to distract one from the main issue. The Minister has been doing such a thing rather well. We have been told about systems and given promises of reform in the future, even though there are absolutely no assurances that we will get it. I even detected that it was vaguely suggested in the other place that the Lords amendments might not work quite as intended. If that is the case, the ball is firmly in the Minister's court because the Government would have not the slightest difficulty curing that problem, if they wished to do so.
	I am sorry that we are again not succeeding in making progress. The Bill will continue to go backwards and forwards. It has been pointed out that unless the time period is extended, the Bill has until19 July. If the Government wish to continue the argument, they can extend the time allowed until the end of the parliamentary Session. If they do so, I will be only too happy to come back to the Dispatch Box to debate the matter further with the Minister because as long as it is alive, there is some hope that we will reach the outcome that everyone in the Chamber—including, I strongly suspect, the Minister—would like to see.
	I hope that reasonableness will prevail. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we cannot support the Government's motion. However, whatever happens in the Division, I hope, if the Minister is not promoted, that he will give us his benevolent presence again in the Chamber and that we can reach the happy moment when we agree that we have a sensible timetable and target so that protection for some of the most vulnerable members of our society will finally be provided in a completely reasonable fashion.

Edward Davey: Yes, it is the acid test, and I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will give the Prime Minister that first bauble; we will congratulate the Minister if he does. I want to make two more points on the substance behind the issue. To refer back to my first intervention on the Minister, he and his colleagues in the other place keep telling us that the Government accept the principle behind the measure. We want to believe that and take it at face value, but there are so many caveats—so many ifs and buts—that it is difficult to believe that the principle really has been accepted, and that the Government are not simply using parliamentary and legislative devices to avoid the pressure that is being put on them. If the Minister was prepared to say that it is no longer an issue of 'if' or 'whether', but rather of 'when', that would be a shift. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) suggested the last time we debated the amendments, the Minister could come before the House with a commencement order that named a date two or three years hence. If he did that, I am sure that reasonable people on both sides of the Chamber would give it serious consideration, even though many of us want the measure to be introduced very quickly.
	Although the Minister has been courteous, generous and attentive to the remarks of hon. Members of all parties throughout the passage of the legislation, on this last point he really has not gone far enough. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield is quite right: the other place will stand absolutely firm on the issue. One only has to read the  Hansard report of the debate in the other place to realise that the other place feels very strongly about it, and it is being backed, and encouraged to stand firm, by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Benchers in this place. The number of Cross Benchers and Labour Members of the other place who support the Conservative and Liberal Democrat position is very large. The Minister mentioned to me in passing, yesterday evening or the day before, that he thought that a number of Lords had peeled off, but I have to tell him that the numbers against him are still very large. There might have been an extra-nice dinner on the evening of the vote, but the resolve of the Lords is clear.

Andrew Dismore: I certainly agree with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). As far as I am aware, no one wants to put an end to the Bill. I started campaigning for the Bill some 20 years ago, in my former professional capacity, and after 20 years' hard work I certainly do not want to see the Bill go down the tubes. I have some reservations about whether its health and safety aspects are strong enough, and I have expressed them previously. Those who criticise the Bill and raise questions about it would do better to focus on those health and safety points, rather than on some of the issues that have been raised today. However, I feel strongly about the issue of deaths in custody, particularly after the work that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, did on the issue.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was right to remind us of what the issue is really about: it is about vulnerable people who die when in the state's custody, when the state has responsibility for their safety. He is also right to say that the overwhelming majority of those deaths, while tragic and unfortunate, are ultimately not the fault of anybody in authority. However, a very small number—perhaps a dozen or so over the past 10 years—do merit further detailed inquiry, perhaps under the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is meant to be a deterrent. It is not meant to be used to prosecute; it is meant to try to make people who come within the ambit of the Bill, from whatever walk of life, take their responsibilities seriously, whether we are talking about the transport network, accidents at work in factories, or death in custody.
	I am pleased that the Government have made significant concessions since we first raised the issue on Report. On that occasion, we were met with what was virtually a "no surrender" statement from the Home Secretary. I am pleased that the Government have listened and made concessions on the need for statutory powers for the prisons and probation ombudsman. We do not yet have a date, but I hope that measures will appear in the forthcoming Queen's Speech, following the review by the forum for preventing deaths in custody—we were told that that would take six months or so—and the amendments conceding the principle in the Bill. That is an important concession, and my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the way in which he has approached the issue and engaged with Members on both sides of the House who have raised it, and with the other place, to make progress. It is even more important than it was when we first started to debate the issue. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Government introduced a new order to amend the rules on restraint in secure training centres which, on the face of it, broadened the powers to use restraint. The inquest into the death of Gareth Myatt case has only just taken place, highlighting the need for additional protection in the Bill. I am not suggesting for one minute that those powers will be misused, but if they are to be broadened, the safeguards that accompany them must be broadened, too. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) prayed against the order, as I did myself, so that the issue can be discussed and fleshed out.
	My hon. Friend the Minister knows full well from today's debate and all the ping-pong that it comes down a question of whether he will name the day. That is all that we are interested in. I have suggested a number of different ways in which that could be done, and ways around the problem. Last time we discussed the matter, I suggested replacing the words in the first line of the new clause,
	"The Secretary of State may by order",
	with the words, "The Secretary of State shall by order". As we know from case law, the Secretary of State is obliged to keep that duty under active review to make sure that it is not overlooked. It should be a mandatory rather than a permissive power, and it would be a major step forward in efforts to resolve the problem.
	My hon. Friend is over-cautious in his proposed timetable. As has been said, we are asking for a target date. As I mentioned in our previous debate, a target is not mandatory—it suggests that we want to do something by a certain date. I am not even proposing that the target should appear in the Bill. If my hon. Friend commits to a date two or three years hence, and if it proves impossible to meet that date because of the improvements that we want to achieve, he or his successor would have to return to the House and explain why that was so. That is one way forward. As has been said today and previously, without a target date, there is no incentive to make the improvements necessary to make sure that prisons are safer and that the recommendations from the forum for preventing deaths in custody and from the ombudsman are put in place. We hope that the change will be made, and if my hon. Friend went down that route, it would be a major concession that could well be the way forward. He need not necessarily include a binding date in the Bill, but we would like a commitment to try to do those things by a certain date. That would go a long way towards resolving the issues that we face.
	Last time we debated the Bill, and on previous occasions, I told my hon. Friend that without a date the measure will not be accepted by the other place. Indeed, the other place has made that clear on the two or even three occasions on which the Bill has gone backwards and forwards between the two Houses. Given the number of Members voting against the Government in the other place, the Bill will come back again. However, time is running out: as has been said, the Bill must complete its passage through the Commons by the middle of next month; otherwise the Government will have to return with a further continuation order. That would look silly, because we would have exactly the same debate, and the Bill will keep coming back. In the end, if the Government seriously wish to make progress on the Bill—I accept that there have been reservations in the Government about whether the Bill is important, but I put the matter to the former Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee, because it is a fundamental commitment by the Government in several manifestos and in the Warwick agreement, so it cannot be dropped—why can the Minister not make a little movement today and name the day? We will not take breach of promise action if, in the end, the date cannot be met, but it would be a good step forward. If we could not meet the date, we could examine the reasons for failing to do so on a future occasion.

Edward Garnier: I agree with pretty well everything that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said as a matter both of practicality and of principle. I could say the same, too, of the speeches made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). As other hon. Members have suggested, I think that the Minister himself would rather like to have made the speeches that we have heard.
	Under clause 1, the offence of corporate manslaughter would catch mismanagement at a senior level that led to the death of an individual to whom a duty of care was owed. That would bind a Department listed in schedule 1—the Home Office is listed as one such Department—and police forces. As a matter of principle, I cannot see—and I do not think that the Minister can, either—why a death in custody that fits within the narrow compass of the offence should be excluded from the offence of corporate manslaughter. I have yet to hear a coherent or reasonable argument from the Minister for that exclusion. He said that the Government will simply repeat what they have said before, but there is a difference between repetition of a reasonable argument and stubborn refusal to see reason. Reason has been laid before the Government, both in the Commons and in the other place, on numerous occasions, by people who do not have a party political axe to grind. Lord Ramsbotham is an apolitical peer, and does not have any party political affiliations. He is interested in the proper, humane and efficient management of our prisons, and I invite the Government to take his advice in the spirit in which it was given.
	I suspect that, although the Government suggest that they have accepted the principle, by using the affirmation system—the delaying system on the Order Paper—they have converted their lack of principle into some form of acceptable principle for the purposes of debate. That will not do, I am afraid. The hon. Member for Hendon said that all we need is some form of target date. We will not nail the Government to the floor and say that if they miss the date we think they are malevolent. However, if they have genuinely accepted the principle, they should accept a date on which it should be implemented. An extended non-dated principle is no principle at all; it is a disguised way of the Government pretending that they accept the principle without wishing to accept the consequences of that acceptance.
	My concern that the issue of deaths in custody should be brought within the ambit of the Bill derives from the Government's historic failure to manage prisons over the past few years. The Minister knows very well that our prisons are woefully overcrowded, and that Operation Safeguard has been extended by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) to the end of the year, so police and court cells will have to be used until then to deal with overcrowding. Over the next 12 months or so, the early release system, which comes into effect tomorrow, will result in the early release of 25,500 or so offenders to reduce the prison population by a net figure of 1,200. Let us not worry about whether that is a good idea or not: let us put it in the context of the Government's concerns about the Bill. Surely they recognise that overcrowded prisons create all sorts of difficulties for prison management, which brings me back to clause 1. Lots of people in prison are drug addicts, and lots of them are mentally ill. If people in prison are both mentally ill and substance abusers, the chances of a death in custody are enhanced. It may well be the case that the Government are terrified that if prisons were included in the measure, there would be calls for prosecution on the grounds of corporate manslaughter. The Government, first, should be braver and, secondly, should be careful. This is the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who skilfully parked my question on one side.
	Tomorrow the Government will start throwing on to the streets drug addicts and mentally ill people who will be short of care. They cannot get the requisite care inside prison, but they get some. Class A drug users—heroin and crack cocaine users—are having their health maintained, even if they are not being brought off drugs by the use of methadone and Subutex within the health care system in prisons. If such people are pushed out the back door of prison in order to relieve the overcrowding of our prisons to some extent, the care that they should have got inside prison is unlikely to be given to them outside prison, and some of them may die outside on the street, even if they are not dying inside.
	It is a difficult, a nice, a huge area of concern, and the Government must not try to escape their responsibilities. They must also not try to escape their responsibility to the House and to the proper development of legislation, which we all want to see, as a result of denying the Bill the prospect of having deaths in custody brought within the confines of the narrow offence of corporate responsibility. I urge the Government to be brave and to get on with it, for goodness' sake, and to bring deaths in custody within the confines of corporate manslaughter responsibility.
	The Government should use that as a spur better to manage the prisons, the overcrowding and the care of inmates who suffer from mental ill health and from substance abuse, so that the prospects of being prosecuted are hugely diminished and the improvements in our prison system are enhanced as a consequence of the spur that the offence would bring.
	I know that the Minister will say, "No, thanks. We've heard it all before," but it is time for him to demonstrate a change. If the Government really do mean change—I am not in the least bit convinced that the present Prime Minister is any different from the Chancellor of the Exchequer who presided over us for the past 10 years—and if the Prime Minister meant what he said on the steps of Downing street yesterday, he will produce a real change that goes beyond simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate and pay tribute to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I am aware of the strength of feeling on the matter, but that narrow issue is affecting the Government's movement right across the Bill.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for their speeches, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon who, through his Select Committee, has pursued the matter and graciously accepted that the Government have made progress and have made concessions. He will know that the Bill published yesterday contained the proposals for changes to the prison and probation ombudsman, as I had said, and that on the forum on deaths in custody, there is a time scale which I set the last time we discussed the matter.
	Hon. Members seem to imply that the Government do not want to change, but it is this Government who are lifting Crown immunity. That raises complex issues about the Crown acting as an employer or occupier which need to be addressed. I want to make sure that we get the legislation in the best shape possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon was right to say that the Bill is intended as a deterrent. We all agree that we do not want the penalties in it to be enforced—we want appropriate health and safety measures to be put in place. My hon. Friend mentioned secure training centres and the review of restraint methods. That is entirely appropriate.
	I would not want anyone to think that the Government do not care about deaths in custody. We certainly do, and for all the reasons that have been set out, we must continue to investigate what happens and why. That is the function of the forum on deaths in custody. There are also the changes to the prison and probation ombudsman, and we accept the principle of extending the Bill. We envisage that the Bill would be enacted as we set out, but the judgment on when its extension to custody should take place will be made at a future time, when all the outstanding issues have been considered.
	Lifting Crown immunity is a significant step forward. I accept that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) does not accuse anyone in the House of trying to kill the Bill. However, people outside are worried because we do not seem to be making progress. The Government are making concessions, but we are not seeing any movement by others. There is no acknowledgement of the fact that Crown immunity has been lifted.
	We face a problem with the timetable. It is true that an extension is possible, but only if there is a prospect of moving forward. At present there is no such prospect. Our position is clear. I do not want all the hard work and effort that have gone into the Bill, which has been around for a long time—

David Winnick: I do not want to undermine the possibility of the Bill becoming law, so I shall not vote, as I fully support nine tenths of its content. I hope that if the Lords insist on their amendment—as I said, I will not be disappointed if they do—my hon. Friend will have frank discussions with the new Home Secretary to see whether a compromise can be reached that will satisfy both Houses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in clause 9 page 7, line 8, , after 'may', insert
	', and for the purposes of the national statutory concession shall,'.
	No. 15, page 7, line 24, after 'may', insert
	', and for the purposes of the national statutory concession shall.'.

Stephen Hammond: There was no dissent in the House on Second Reading or in Committee as tothe intent of the Bill. The Opposition support the extension of concessionary travel for eligible people on eligible journeys in the transition from a local to a national scheme. We support the freedom pass in London and will do everything to ensure that it continues. However, the Government cannot will the end unless they will the means. I recognise that we debated this issue in Committee, but it is key to the Bill. Without the finance, the "end" of concessionary travel cannot be achieved, or can be achieved only at the expense of cuts in services or increased council tax. So far, the Government's response has been to say that enough funding will be available. Although I have absolutely no doubt as to the Minister's integrity or the sincerity of her belief that that is correct, that cannot be sufficient for the purposes of the Bill.

David Davies: My hon. Friend raises an important and pertinent issue. Is he aware that in Monmouthshire, where we have a concessionary bus scheme and have done for several years as a result of measures taken by the Welsh Assembly, over the past 10 years council tax has gone up by the highest amount of any local authority in the United Kingdom—by 184 per cent.—and that one of the many reasons for that is the lack of proper funding by the Welsh Assembly Government for the concessionary bus transport scheme? Does he agree that it is vital that we ensure that constituents in England do not also suffer 184 per cent. council tax increases as a result of flawed funding formulas?

Stephen Hammond: Indeed I do. Again, I shall come to that point shortly. The new clause would ensure that the situation that my hon. Friend describes does not happen again.
	As I was saying, council tax now constitutes a heavy burden for those on low, and even middle incomes. Naturally, a large number of those affected by the sharp increases are elderly or disabled, whose lives the Bill, commendably, aims to improve by offering them free access to local travel nationally. Those two groups are most likely to be affected, and indeed financially disadvantaged, by the Bill's potential side effects. There are several ways in which its financial effects will be felt by the same people whom it was intended to help.
	Let me give a brief snapshot of my experience in local government. Prior to becoming a Member of this House, I had the privilege of serving as a councillor at the London borough of Merton. I stood down when the Conservatives took control of the borough last May. While serving on that council, I became all too familiar with the impact that mayoral demands on money for concessionary travel were having on the local authority's finances. In 2004-05, the Mayor imposed on the borough a 9 per cent. increase for the freedom pass. As the Minister knows, local authorities in London have no option but to find that extra sum of money, and in that year the local authority had no option but to find it from the social services budget. That resulted in cuts to day care, disadvantaging exactly the same groups who benefit from the freedom pass—the elderly and the disabled.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. When we phoned the local authority back to check whether its initial suspicions had proved correct, we not only found that its concerns been realised. On 15 March this year, it told us that it will experience a severe shortfall in the budget. It also made the same point as the hon. Lady: it needs more time for implementation.
	We spoke to Cheshire, which made the same point. It was worried that the obligation to provide free fares will mean trimming services that it already provides. Indeed, when we phoned back this year, it made exactly the same point. The grant is not sufficient to cover its liabilities.
	I could go on—I spoke to 15 authorities, but I am sure that I do not need to detain the House by going through them all.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Following the discussions in Committee, I hope that when the Government introduce the scheme in April next year they will be able to introduce it with a smartcard. If they can do that, we will be able to see clear ridership patterns and identify who is using the scheme. If a person is not using the card, they will not be attracting any recompense or reimbursement, but it will be possible to follow the ridership pattern. That is the overwhelming advantage of smartcards, and I believe that the Minister said in Committee that it was her intention, if possible, to introduce the scheme with smartcards.
	Let me turn now from the adequacy of central Government funding to the relationship between operators and local authorities. I shall explain why new clause 3 is relevant and applicable in this regard. As the experience of the 2006 concessionary bus travel scheme has shown, there has been considerable disagreement between local authorities and the Government. There was also considerable disagreement between local authorities and bus operators as to the level of reimbursement provided for carrying concessionary fares.
	The Government have stipulated that the reimbursement should be on a "no better off, no worse off" basis, but there is some dispute as to exactly what that means. It is clear that the 60-odd appeals that were initially registered with the Secretary of State by operators over reimbursement arrangements suggest that there is the potential for problems. Reimbursement on a "no better off, no worse off" basis is, in reality, an extremely difficult balance to achieve. After all, the marginal cost to an operator of carrying a few extra passengers is virtually nil. However, when numbers reach the point at which extra vehicles have to be brought in and extra drivers hired, the cost is not only an operating cost but a capital cost. Should the local authority at that point be presented with a large bill for the capital cost, or merely with a bill for the operating cost reimbursement?
	A review of the systems put in place by concession authorities after two years of operation would allow the Government to establish whether costs were being borne fairly between authorities and operators. It would further enable the Government to establish best practice nationally and to advise concession authorities on how to improve efficiency and achieve savings. When introduced, the 2008 scheme will involve so many variables and unknowns that a review of the kind proposed by our new clause could be extremely valuable.
	A further concern is that the Bill does not lay down the mechanisms by which local authorities will be reimbursed by central Government for the cost of funding concessionary travel. The Government have said many times that the details have yet to be decided. Understandably, local authorities across the country are extremely worried about the lack of clarity over funding, and what the arrangements that are eventually put into place will mean for them.
	Given that the details of the funding arrangements are, at best, opaque, and that they are unlikely to become more transparent until after the passing of the Bill, we believe that the new clause would provide the concession authorities with a degree of reassurance. They would have some hope of redress, should they find themselves short-changed by the funding arrangements. As the Opposition made clear on Second Reading, there is some scope for some authorities in so-called hotspot or honeypot areas to find themselves heavily out of pocket. The funding for the 2006 scheme was shown to be insufficient in a number of areas, even when based on fairly static numbers for residents over 60. Because the nationwide eligibility for over-60s is established in the Bill, the potential for error will be hugely exacerbated.
	The new clause would oblige the Secretary of State to provide a review to Parliament, to ensure that the total sum of central Government funds made available to local authorities in the previous financial year for the provision of bus services and the funding of concessions on those services was appropriate.

David Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that over the years in which members of the Opposition were in government, numerous instances of various formulae being used to allocate money to different local authorities for different reasons were shown after only a short time to be significantly flawed? What we are asking for is therefore perfectly reasonable and sensible, and ought to be supported by anyone who saw the damage that previous formulae did in areas such as the overall funding for local government, resulting in massive council tax increases across the country.

Lee Scott: Does not new clause 3 do exactly what the Minister was referring to? No one can say whether£1 billion or another figure is appropriate, so a review after two years would be a first-class way of establishing the correct figure.

David Davies: Has anyone done any studies of the local authorities that have been underfunded and those that have been overfunded? Past experience suggests to me—perhaps I am a little cynical after eight years of doing this job, albeit in two different Parliaments—that previous local government funding formula changes have resulted in Labour-run local authorities in certain areas of Wales, some of which have not even been able to keep their books in order, receiving rather more money than they are entitled to while well-run rural local authorities, Conservative and Liberal Democrat alike, have had their funding cut in a disgusting fashion, resulting in higher council taxes for all. Have there been any studies of how this formula is likely to operate, and which local authorities may benefit and which lose out?

Jim Cousins: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the very wise words of Adam Smith. He was an honest Scotsman, and this, of course, is a time to be singing the praises of such men. His profile is now to be found on our banknotes, and in one remark he observed that, when three or four business men gather together, a conspiracy against the public was waiting to happen. So it has proved with bus privatisation.
	We now have a small number of big operators. In my region, we have recently seen the sale of a body of operations in the town of Darlington, which Stagecoach had managed to capture after years of competition. The whole operation has now been sold en bloc to another national-level operator. We are not now dealing with a variety of bus companies that are all small and locally based. I know that such things exist, but the bulk of bus operations are now run by a small number of big national operators with some of the characteristics of a cartel. The block sale of all the operations in Darlington from Stagecoach to another operator in the past fortnight indicates the kind of things that happen.
	Similarly, if the Government were to accept the responsibility for running the national statutory concession, the issues of reimbursement could be resolved. The Government could then negotiate forcefully with the limited number of big operators that is the reality of modern bus networks. The debate about the unfairness of the grant regime could itself be resolved and the Government could be reassured that grant given for the purposes of supporting the statutory concession would not be recycled inside local authority finances to pay for other activities. Again, if the Government met the costs of the national statutory concession, all this churning of grant through council and passenger transport authority budgets, with all the knock-on effects for council tax, could be resolved.
	There would be an additional attraction for the Government if they took on the responsibility for operating the national statutory concession. They could produce a nationally branded scheme. Such a scheme could be supported by smartcard operations in the way that some Opposition Members have sensibly suggested, but even if it was not, a nationally branded scheme would be a much better incentive for the recovery of bus networks, which must be one ofthe objectives of the Bill, apart from simply operating the concession itself.
	A nationally branded scheme would bring some benefit to the Government of the day and some clarity about how schemes were funded and supported. Of course, outside the national statutory scheme there could still be proper debate locally about extensions to the national scheme. For example, in London the freedom pass kicks in at 9 am. In the county of Tyne and Wear, it kicks in at 9.30 am. There is a debate to be had about how the national scheme, which functions from 9.30 in the morning, could be brought forward to 9 am. Those debates could be had locally without being confused by the wider arguments about the fairness of the grant support.
	The rights conferred in the Bill will create new demand for bus services up and down the country. The Bill will lead to an expansion of bus services up and down the country. If the national statutory concession is nationally funded, the extra demand that will be created can then be supported by the Government. It would not be a problem for local council tax payers or local authorities. The rising level of bus use and the improvement in the quality of bus services that we hope will result from this Bill would then be seen as it properly should, as a collateral benefit, not, as it would be if we kept the present obsolete structure of formula funding, as a problem rather than a benefit.
	It will be impossibly difficult to achieve through annual grant awards by formula proper support for the rising use of buses and the extension of bus networks unless the national statutory scheme is operated, funded and negotiated by the Department for Transport. That is the purpose of my amendments, and I commend them to the House. Indeed, the Government must have contemplated that course of action anyway because otherwise they would not have provided for that possibility in clause 9. I very much hope that the clause will not prove to be a residual, fallback position, but that the Government can build on it to introduce a nationally branded scheme, which is nationally funded and nationally negotiated, so that all the local difficulties that have been the by-product of doing something that in itself is commendable and good can be avoided.

Paul Rowen: The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. We believe it will go a long way towards dealing with social exclusion; its introduction has the support of the whole House. Notwithstanding that fact, however, in Committee we raised a number of concerns and issues that we wanted resolved, some of which were fully discussed but some of which are still of concern. The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) addresses one of those points.
	In response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins), although as a general principle we welcome the introduction of a national scheme, we believe that the right and proper place for its administration and operation is with local authorities and passenger transport authorities. We certainly would not support the Government's taking over that responsibility.
	Many Members in Committee and today talked about previous experience of the introduction of local concessionary bus schemes. That gives us sensible pointers to some of the issues and concerns with regard to the extension to a national scheme, and I do not intend to rehearse or repeat the arguments that have already been so eloquently put. However, earlier this year, I tabled a question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the number of visitors to various places and the most popular visitor destinations in Britain. Although the DCMS was able to give fairly accurate figures for the number of visitors, it had no information about the number who might qualify under the Bill for a concessionary bus pass. That brings us to the crux of the problem with the scheme. The Minister has assured us that, with£250 million, the Bill is adequately funded, but the reality is that none of us knows whether that is the case. We do not and cannot know until the Bill is in operation what the effect of concessionary bus travel on individual authorities will be.
	It is clear that certain authorities, whether we call them honey pots or tourist destinations, will be disproportionately affected by the Bill. For example, throughout the year the majority of visitors to Blackpool—a Lancashire town I know well—are retired people and they will qualify to use the bus services in the town while they are there. It is clearly wrong that Blackpool borough should therefore have to pay the cost of those visitors coming and using the service while they are on holiday in Blackpool. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central said, Blackpool will not receive from the formula grant any recognition of that use of the service. As has been repeated, the formula grant is a blunt instrument. My borough is very much likes those in the north-east, in that 32 per cent. of the people in Rochdale do not own a car. They rely wholly upon the use of public transport. Their needs will be reflected to some extent in the formula grant, but not totally. The problem with any formula grant system is that it produces winners and losers.
	In Committee, we moved several amendments. One was designed to ensure that the national scheme was ITSO compliant, so that there could be an accurate measure of the number of people using buses. Although we might hope to achieve that in the next two or three years, we are certainly will not achieve it by next April. In another amendment, we wanted to make sure that local authorities were properly funded and we sought a commitment from the Minister that she would deliver on that. That amendment was not accepted. Then we supported the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and similar to one moved by my noble Friends in the other place. It would have provided for some money to be moved back.
	The Minister accepted none of those proposals. Although new clause 3 is not necessarily as strong as I would like it to be, I believe that we need a commitment from the Government that they will take the issue seriously. Once the Bill is up and running, the problems are likely to get greater. We have seen this year for the first time, outside London, that the number of people using buses has risen. However, we need a proper analysis of who those people are. More than a cursory glance will demonstrate that they are predominantly those who have a concessionary bus pass. I welcome that. One of the Bill's laudable aims is to promote social inclusion. But if the Bill is not properly funded, the burden will fall on local authorities and that will cause disproportionate cuts that will probably affect just the people who benefit from travelling on buses. Whether those cuts are to social care or to the provision of leisure services, or whether groups such as young people end up, as happened in the north-east, facing increasing fares, that will not be right and proper.
	I therefore hope that the Minister will consider the new clause. It would not alter one jot or iota of what the Government want to do, but it would commit the Department and future Ministers to carrying out a proper review, to ensure that the operation of scheme can be reviewed once it is fully in place and that we can have a proper discussion of what the funding needs are, where the money should come from and how it is to be delivered.

David Davies: I have a slight sense of déjà vu because some years ago, perhaps even before Ministers had thought about a concessionary scheme for England, I, like all my Conservative colleagues in the Welsh Assembly, defended and supported wholeheartedly the initiation of such a scheme in Wales. We supported it then and we support it now because the Conservative party has always believed that the public have the right to choose to use safe, efficient and reliable forms of public transport. While large amounts of tax are raised from car fuel, the public are unfortunately not given the proper choice of catching buses instead. They deserve such a choice and the situation needs to be reversed.
	This scheme is good for everyone, not just the over-60s who will be entitled to a bus pass. If demand for bus services increases, especially in rural areas, it is likely that more services will be laid on. The scheme is thus good for anyone who wishes to use public transport. It is good for car users, too, because if more people use buses, roads will be less congested. If the scheme is properly managed, we will have a win-win-win situation for all those who use transport to get from A to B, which is virtually all of us.
	The key factor is whether the scheme is properly managed. Several unexpected problems arose after the scheme was introduced in Wales. Many people will be aware of the market town of Chepstow, which is on the border of my constituency. Chepstow itself is in Wales, in the county of Monmouthshire. However, part of Chepstow is on the English side of the border. Pensioners who live in the Welsh part of Chepstow in the constituency of Monmouth receive a free bus pass that they may use to travel as far as Hereford, which, of course, is in England—Owain Glyndwr did not get quite that far. However, people who live in Tidenham, which is just across the river and somewhat on the outskirts of Chepstow, cannot get hold of a free bus pass to travel into the towns in Wales in which many of them do their shopping. They will not be able to do so after the introduction of the scheme under the Bill because the cross-border problems have not been sorted out.
	When the Minister considers funding, I hope that one of her first actions will be to try to ensure that a scheme is introduced whereby people can use their passes throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. As an unashamed Unionist, I am disappointed that people will be restricted to their constituent nations, rather than be able to exercise their right to travel the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. They have paid their taxes over the years for such a right.
	The scheme in Wales gave rise not just to cross-border issues, but to enormous problems involving the allocation of funding, many of which have been mentioned today. Some local authorities have received more funding than they might have been expected to get, whereas other received less. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) eloquently set out the way in which such funding inequalities can arise.
	I am a bit of a cynic, and I have suggested before that formulas have sometimes been used in a particular way, quite deliberately, to benefit certain local authorities at the expense of others for political reasons. I have certainly seen that happen in Wales and I want to ensure that people in England are protected from that. What can possibly be unfair about suggesting that Ministers look at the formula in two years' time to ensure that everything is being done in an equitable manner? If nothing else, that will protect existing bus services, and protect people from inordinate rises in council tax, such as those that have taken place over the past 10 years. As I have said before—I will repeat it quite a few times in the years ahead—council tax has risen by 184 per cent. over the past 10 years in Monmouthshire. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon talked about a doubling of council tax, but my constituents would have been absolutely delighted if their council tax had merely doubled. Many of them are struggling to pay their mortgages.
	Many other problems have arisen in Wales as unexpected consequences of the Act. In some areas, a sort of impromptu park-and-ride scheme has developed; people drive into towns—often, I am told, in their Mercedes-Benz—and park on outlying streets, and then use the local bus service to ride into town. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a free country, and everyone would support people's right to do that. However, it means that the local authority to which those people apply for their concessionary pass ends up getting lots of funding, while the local authority that pays for them to use the buses does not. That is one example of the sort of iniquity that could arise in the funding formula. We need to make sure that the Government are aware of all those problems, and the many others that are likely to arise, and we need to ensure that they have the means with which to deal with them. If they fail to deal with the problems, there will be a reduction in services, which is what all of us are fighting against.
	There is also the issue of rural areas. Many rural areas have to subsidise all or most of the bus routes that are in place. I believe that all rural areas are grossly disadvantaged by virtually every funding formula used by the Government. I am sorry to have to say it, and perhaps the Minister will like to argue the point, but I see that as very much a political decision. For example, in the county of Monmouthshire, the funding formula that is used to fund local government generally used to take proper account of sparsity, and that is absolutely right, because of course it always costs more to deliver services in a rural area, where there are much greater distances for buses, or any other services, to travel. The last funding formula change reduced much of the weighting that was given to take account of sparsity. It also resulted in sparsity being calculated with reference to how long it takes to get from A to B, not by road, but as the crow flies. That meant that many isolated rural communities were counted almost as part of urban conurbations under the formula, and the local authority lost out as a result.
	That sort of subtle change, which most people could not be expected to pick up on, has been deliberately used to disadvantage rural areas. We do not want the same thing to happen with the formula used for allocating money for transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon—the Front-Bench spokesman for transport—has not suggested that there is anything wrong with the scheme; he merely suggested that it would be wise of the Government to consult the Local Government Association in two years' time to make sure that the money is being allocated in a fair and reasonable fashion. It puzzles me that anyone would argue that that is not the wise and sensible thing to do. I say again that it could prevent bus services from being cut, prevent council taxes from rising, and ensure that local authorities are listened to, in a system in which there is accountability. That is why all those in the House who care about supporting bus services should support new clause 3 this afternoon.

Gillian Merron: We return once more to this important Bill, and in particular to the issue of funding for local authorities, which we discussed at great length in Committee, including the arrangements for the reimbursement of bus operators.
	May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins) and his near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), for recognising the importance of the Bill to passengers, to the improvement of bus services—and the figures are coming through—to efforts to tackle social exclusion, and to the improvement of the public transport network. That is why I am great supporter and advocate of this Labour Government Bill. I appreciate, too, the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne about saving the Government from judicial review, and I am happy to take his advice.
	I shall make some general points before coming to the specific matters raised by the amendments. I have previously stated—and I am happy to restate it—that I agree absolutely with the sentiment that local authorities should indeed be adequately funded by central Government for the costs of administering that mandatory concession. After all, it is the Government's policy to fund fully new statutory burdens. Let us be honest: it is in everyone's interest in the House that we get it right, and that is what I am keen to do. Ashon. Members know—and I will restate it for the record—the Government will provide up to an extra £250 million of funding a year for the proposed new national bus concession. That is in addition to the significant extra funding that we have already provided to local authorities for the implementation last year of free off-peak local bus travel within local authorities. We provided £350 million in 2006-07, and £367.5 million in 2007-08. We remain confident that there is sufficient overall to fund the extra costs to local authorities to provide that welcome improvement, which has benefited millions of people. I shall come to our calculations in a few moments and explain them.

Charles Walker: On reflection, I was rather inarticulate in expressing my concerns. Many bus routes start at Waltham Cross, which is in Hertfordshire and on the border with London, but 90 to 95 per cent. ofthe benefits go to London. Owing to the fact that the routes originate in Hertfordshire, we will fund the full cost of the scheme, although 95 per cent. of the distance covered falls within London to the benefit of Londoners.

Gillian Merron: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's encouragement.
	For the benefit of hon. Members who did not participate in Committee, I should say that it is true that there is no mention of the funding for concessionary travel in the Bill, but I can assure the House that that is for very good reasons. As we know, circumstances change and flexibility needs to be built into the legislation to enable future improvements to concessionary travel to be made as efficiently and effectively as possible. It would not be appropriate or wise to lock ourselves into a particular approach now, as the important issue of funding is currently being considered and discussed across Government and beyond. The existing arrangements contain appropriate checks and balances to ensure that public funds are spent wisely, which is something with which we would all concur; an incentive for local authorities to reimburse cost-effectively by a fair amount; and the right of appeal for any operator who believes they have been disadvantaged. Importantly, the system is fair to the taxpayer and the operator alike.
	The extra funding that the Government have announced for the new concession already includes a generous allowance, both for uncertainty over future travel patterns and the difficulties of allocating money on a formula basis. The sum of up to £250 million extra per year is based on a number of key assumptions. Hon. Members may be interested to know that those include an extra 100 million journeys generated and a pass take-up rate of 85 per cent. Once distributed, it will result in double-digit percentage increases for most travel concession authorities against budgets that already include discretionary spend. The extra costs will not be as much as many people may think, because many of the new trips will be generated travel, which will not require full reimbursement. I hope that that gives some indication about the sums involved. The House should be concerned about the full amount, as well as the distribution, which I am on record as saying is extremely important. The assumptions are generous. As I said, we have allowed for a pass take-up rate of85 per cent. In some areas of England, pass take-up is below 40 per cent. at present, so we are confident that the extra funding is sufficient to cover the total extra costs to local authorities.
	It is important to recognise that the freedom and flexibilities provided by unhypothecated formula grant, which was discussed earlier, are generally supported by local authorities. They have long argued against having their hands tied by hypothecated funding streams. Concessionary fares reimbursement is only one of the many obligations that authorities must meet from their council tax receipts and from the funding provided by central Government through the formula grant process.
	The Local Government Association strongly supports a specific grant for the extra funding for the national bus concession, at least on a temporary basis. However, we need to be clear that such a move would be a break from the policy of greater freedom and flexibilities in funding which is generally welcomed by the local government community. It would also be inconsistent with the basis for allocating existing funding, and we would need good reasons for making such a change. However, the Department for Transport, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury are looking carefully at the merits of different funding mechanisms for statutory concessions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With thisit will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 6, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
	'(4A) For the purposes of this section a disabled person is a person who—
	(a) is blind or partially sighted,
	(b) is profoundly or severely deaf,
	(c) is without speech,
	(d) has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to walk,
	(e) does not have arms or has long-term loss of both arms,
	(f) has a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or
	(g) would be defined as having a mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect onhis ability to carry out day-to-day activities in accordance with section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended, or
	(h) would, if he applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have his application refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol,'.
	No. 9, page 2, line 30, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
	No. 10, in clause 4, page 4, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Stephen Hammond: Amendment No. 8 seeks to clarify the definition of services on which concessionary journeys can be taken. That is a concern across England, but it is a particular issue in London. London Councils, as the body running the concessionary fare scheme on behalf of the boroughs in London, has indicated to me that it particularly supports the amendment.
	Although London has the most generous concessionary fare scheme in the country, the current freedom pass is not valid on some bus services, because they do not form part of the London bus network and are operated under what are known as London service permits, issued by Transport for London. According to the current definition of an eligible service, London Councils has estimated that the concession could apply to 118 of those services, operated by 51 different companies, from next April. Most people, however, would recognise only about 13 of those as local bus services.
	Where a local bus service is clearly provided, which all eligible persons could use, there is no question but that the concession should apply. The current definition of an eligible service, however, could include special events services, park-and-ride services—where a bus fare is charged rather than a car parking fee—open-top bus services and many of the express coach services starting in London. Clearly, those are not what most people would call local bus services. They should not be included in the concession, but London Councils and I estimate that under the current Bill, all those routes would be eligible for the new concessionary fares.
	The Minister will no doubt say that she has the power to make an order if there proves to be a need to clarify the definition of an eligible service. In the interim, however, that will merely result in uncertainty for everyone: uncertainty for operators as to whether they should accept concessions and whether they will get reimbursement; uncertainty for local authorities, as they will not know for sure whom they should negotiate with; and most importantly, uncertainty for pass holders as to whether they can use their pass. That is not efficient, and many of the organisations involved will not be able to plan ahead. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled the amendment. The amendment would exclude some of the more obvious examples of services that are not truly local bus services. I have suggested three exclusions. The first is services with no intermediate stops between the point of departure and the end destination. A topical example is the special service to Chelsea flower show from Victoria station. Another example is park-and-ride services. Where parking is free and a bus fare is charged, it would be odd for the concessionary traveller to benefit when they would not benefit where the bus was free and the parking was charged for.
	The second exclusion would be services with a commentary. Such services are primarily for tourism purposes, such as the open-top sightseeing buses that we see coming down Whitehall and past the Palace. The third exemption would be services with at least one bookable seat. That would exclude the coach services between Heathrow and Victoria. If that service were included, London councils would end up paying for the airport transfers of thousands of visitors to the capital, and I am convinced that that was not the intent of the Bill. So amendment No. 8 is specific and clear.
	Section 146 of the Transport Act 2000 allows a change of definition of eligible services. I suspect that the Minister will claim that the order-making power will be sufficient, but I do not believe that it will, for the reasons that I have just stated and because of the uncertainty to which I alluded previously. The amendment has the benefit of clarity. It would add to the definition of eligible services those that should be included and excludes those that should not be included in the Bill. The three extra definitions would remove considerable uncertainty, and there is no reason why they should not be added to the Bill. I listened carefully to the Minister's attempts to reassure me, but I can see no reason why she should not accept this sensible amendment.
	Amendment No. 6 addresses the definition of eligibility of concessionary fares in the 2000 Act and would add to them an additional section covering those with mental health difficulties.

David Davies: I have worked with mentally ill people in various capacities, and fully understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, mental illness can encompass a wide range of problems—from people who are unable to care for themselves to those who, sometimes exaggeratedly, claim to have minor depression as a way to enhance the benefits that they receive from the Government. Unless we pin down what is meant by mental disability due to mental illness, it would be difficult for the Government to introduce the concession, as there could well be a flood of applications from people not necessarily entitledto it.

Paul Rowen: I accept that. I hope that part of the outcome of the debate this afternoon will be thatthe definition is broadened. We can come back to the House once we have a workable definition and the discussions with Mind have been brought to a conclusion, so that more and more people can qualify.
	There is one other area that I do not think that other hon. Members have mentioned, although I believethat it is partly covered by the amendment tabledby the hon. Member for Wimbledon. People with a communication or social disability such as Asperger's syndrome do not have a learning disability. They would be excluded by strict interpretation of the definition in the Transport Act 2000. While people with Asperger's syndrome are not generally refused a driving licence, they have to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of their condition. Their cases are assessed on an individual basis. That can make car insurance unaffordable, especially for young people. So I hope that when the Minister continues her review, she will consider people suffering from Asperger's, and whether we can deal with those issues.
	In conclusion, although we agree with the thrust of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, we believe that the most sensible course will be to continue the dialogue with Department of Transport officials and then bring a definition back to the House.

Gillian Merron: To assist the hon. Gentleman, I refer him to the order that I have already mentioned. Bus operators and local authorities should refer to that. Obviously I cannot comment on specific cases, but should he require assistance, I would be happy to provide it on the receipt of further details.
	On amendments Nos. 9 and 10, the Bill already includes a power for the Secretary of State to issue such guidance, so I see no need for the amendments. In fact, it would be bizarre to be required to implement guidance that was not required by those who would be in receipt of it and that would risk diverting valuable resources from other important work to which I am sure both sides of the House wish us to be committed. The amendments are insufficiently flexible and are superfluous. With that in mind, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will not press amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 6 and that he will withdraw amendment No.8.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendmentNo. 11, page 10, line 39, leave out subsection (3).

Gillian Merron: All three amendments aim to change provisions in the Bill relating to the Secretary of State's powers with regard either to minor or consequential amendments or to the commencement of the measure. It is a little strange that hon. Members have waited until Report to raise those points of concern, as there has been plenty of opportunity to do so, both inside and outside the House. I cannot help but wonder about the extent to which the issues in the amendments are of genuine concern. That aside, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to learn that my reasons for not accepting the amendments go beyond the time at which they were tabled.
	Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 would delete two subsections from clause 13. Those subsections have been included in the Bill for good reason, and I hasten to add that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee accepted that that isthe case, as it did not draw attention to the power in clause 13(3) in its report on the Bill last December. The Department was very grateful for the report, asLord Davies of Oldham made clear in his response of 18 January this year. As the Department explained in its original memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—that memorandum is in the public domain—clause 13(3) provides a power for the Secretary of State, by order, to make such consequential amendments to other enactments and instruments as may be appropriate in consequence of any provision in the Bill when enacted.
	It may be helpful to hon. Members if I reiterate the explanation that we gave to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for the inclusion of the power in subsection (3). It ensures that, should the Secretary of State find, as a consequence of bringing the provisions of the Bill into force, that other primary legislation needs to be amended, they have the power to do so without the need for further primary legislation. The power is limited to such amendments as may be needed as a consequence of provisions made in the Bill. The provision would also provide a single power to enable the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to secondary legislation without the need to rely on a number of different order-making powers from different enactments. That power is intended to deal with matters that cannot be foreseen or which have not been identified at this stage. In the nature of things, it is not possible to predict in any detail the circumstances in which there might be a need to exercise that power. To provide further clarification, the Bill contains detailed provisions dealing with the relationship between the Transport Act 2000, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Transport Act 1985. The issues and provisions have been considered in detail but, given their complexity, it is still possible that there are unforeseen or unanticipated issues. If so, the power might be needed to resolve them without recourse to further primary legislation. Although there is a power to deal with the unforeseen, there are no current plans to use it. Moreover, I assure hon. Members that the power is subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure, which provides Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise any proposed use. Consequently, I hope that, like the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee before them, hon. Members are reassured about the reasoning behind the power.
	Amendment No. 13 would alter the Secretary of State's power in clause 15(1) by order to appoint the commencement date of the measure, and to bring different provisions into force on different days. If accepted, it would result in the entire measure being commenced from 1 April next year. I cannot find it in myself to accept such a change. The drafting of clause 15(1) deliberately provides the Secretary of State with the power to commence the Bill's provisions at different times if needed, which is common practice in the House. Again, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was satisfied with that power. As part of the Department's work on the implementation of the national concession, we are considering which provisions in the Bill need to be commenced at which point. It is not necessarily as simple or straightforward, as Opposition Members may believe, as commencing everything from 1 April 2008. There are aspects of implementation, such as those relating to the issuing of passes and to reimbursement arrangements, that may need to be commenced before April 2008 if local authorities and operators are to meet their obligations from April. In addition, although we fully intend the national concession in England to come into effect from next April, no final decision has been taken on the exact date, although it is likely to be early in April.
	I remind the House that 1 April next year is a Tuesday. We need to consider any operational and practical issues for operators and local authorities alike that may result from commencing a significant change in arrangements part-way through the working week. Discussions with the concessionary fares working group will continue and we welcome the group's assistance. With that in mind, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment and also amendments Nos. 11 and 12.

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement amending the Cotonou Agreement) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.
	That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Amended Cotonou Agreement) (Community Aid Internal Agreement) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on4th June, be approved .—[Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

Rosie Cooper: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue of huge importance to families in my constituency. The Minister will know, I am sure, that I am very concerned about the lack of burial provision and have raised the matter regularly with the Ministry of Justice and its predecessor, the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
	Only last week in this Chamber during Questions I highlighted the plight of many bereaved families with the former Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who indicated that under the provisions announced in her written statement earlier this month, councils have additional options available to them, and that there really is no excuse for not providing the burial services much needed by local people.
	I understand that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) is answering the debate at short notice, but I must impress on him how important the matter is for my constituents. My purpose today is to remedy the dreadful situation that persists in my constituency because of the unwillingness of West Lancashire district council to provide sufficient cemetery plots, a crematorium and a remembrance garden so that all local residents can bury their loved ones locally if they so choose. That is not the case at present, as many bereaved families are forced to find burial spaces in neighbouring authorities.
	The lack of burial facilities facing many West Lancashire families, especially those in Skelmersdale, is unjust, unfair and morally unacceptable. People are not being treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. The situation is compounded because it affects those most in need the worst. I am aware that inadequate provision of cemetery and crematorium space is not a West Lancashire-specific problem but that it affects many communities across the UK.
	The scale of the problem was recognised in the eighth report of the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in 2001. The results of a burial ground survey demonstrate that the problem of lack of burial space will only get worse unless steps are taken to resolve it. The survey found that approximately80 per cent. of land available for burials is already occupied by graves, with only 20 per cent. unused. The Select Committee report states that as space in cemeteries runs out, it becomes more and more difficult to ensure that families have the widest possible choice of decent affordable options for the burial of their loved ones. I agree with the report that it is not good enough just to say to the bereaved, "Sorry, you're going to have to bury your loved one 20 or more miles away because there's no space left in your local churchyard."
	The report was the catalyst for work subsequently carried out by the Home Office, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and latterly the Ministry of Justice. The option of introducing a requirement for local authorities to make an assessment of local needs was set out in the recently published paper "Burial law and policy in the 21st century—the way forward". Disappointingly, the document did not make it a duty for local authorities to provide cemeteries—a missed opportunity.
	Today, West Lancashire district council has a population of about 108,000, of whom 75,000 live in my constituency; Skelmersdale alone accounts for more than 40,000 people. In the 1960s, people from Liverpool and the surrounding areas were asked to move to the new town of Skelmersdale and many did. The town's churches and their existing graveyards were meant only to serve Skelmersdale before it was developed into a new town. The graveyards are now full. As one constituent told me, "You can live in Skelmersdale and you can work in Skelmersdale, but whatever you do don't die in Skelmersdale."
	As long ago as 1997, it was estimated that Ormskirk and Aughton had cemetery capacity for only another 12 months. At that time only 30 new grave spaces were available in Skelmersdale. The problem increasingly affects all communities across my constituency, and it is getting worse by the day; information obtained from local clergy gives an idea of its scale. A Catholic priest recently informed me that in his parish more than75 per cent. of local people were buried or cremated outside Skelmersdale. A local vicar told me that in his parish more than 90 per cent. of burials were outside West Lancashire.
	I understand that local authorities do not have an obligation or a duty to provide burial places for their residents.

Rosie Cooper: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Later in my remarks, he will hear that I have had discussions with local farmers and they are offering their land. The district council should accept the offer and move with it immediately.
	Although local authorities do not have an obligation, I would strongly argue that it is morally indefensible for West Lancashire district council not to give people the means to bury their loved ones within a reasonable distance of their homes, rather than 20 or 30 miles away. The council has previously granted planning permission for a private company to provide a crematorium and identified an area in which to site a cemetery. However, there has been no action and no progress on that development. That is a really sad indictment of the council.
	In trying to find a solution, and as a member of the all-party group on funerals and bereavement, I have had discussions with many people, including landowners and private companies. They are interested in providing the land for the development of a cemetery or a crematorium. There is a real opportunity to produce a solution in the coming months in West Lancashire, and it is imperative that the local authority act to resolve the problem now; it needs to resolve it now.
	As I have said, I have worked closely on the issue with members of the local clergy across all the denominations and I have heard many heartbreaking stories. I have heard of cases of families not being able to bury their loved ones as they would wish, and of families who, to secure any burial plot at all, have had to go to Liverpool, St. Helens or Sefton. That places a significant financial and emotional burden on families at a very difficult time.
	Some families face an even more horrendous situation because they cannot find, or indeed afford, a plot. One family were told that they could have a 10-year plot in an adjacent borough. For others, cremation is forced upon them against their religious beliefs—but even then there is nowhere suitable in West Lancashire to scatter the ashes. There are many instances of people keeping ashes at home or burying them in the back garden, and I have been shown urns containing ashes of members of the family in the sideboards of homes in Skelmersdale. That is dreadful and a sad reflection of the council's attitude to the plight of its residents.
	A burial plot, if it were available in West Lancashire, would cost a resident £440, but one in nearby Liverpool could cost £1,422. That is double what Liverpool residents pay, and £982 more than another West Lancashire resident who already had access to a grave would pay. Burying a person in Sefton would cost £1,002, which is an extra £562.
	West Lancashire does not have its own crematorium either. The irony is that nearby Sefton has two sites, one of which is actually located within the boundaries of the West Lancashire area. However, only last year did Sefton revise its cremation fees policy so that residents in West Lancashire did not have to pay increased fees. For cremations, Liverpool charges £844 for a non-resident, which is twice the fee for its own residents, while St. Helens charges non-residents £352 to use its cremation facilities. And after that, there is still the problem of finding a suitable place to scatter the ashes. The Minister will be aware of the practice in most local authorities of non-residents paying a much higher price than local residents, to ensure that there is sufficient provision for the council's tax-paying residents. The question therefore arises of what will happen if West Lancashire council does nothing and the cemeteries in the adjacent areas can no longer assist.
	The costs that I have mentioned are only the beginning of the higher costs and the difficulties faced by my constituents. They pay increased costs to the undertakers for funeral services, because they cross local authority boundaries and there are increased distances and more time taken. There are also transport difficulties in West Lancashire, and there is no real community transport. If families do not have a car or want to use public transport to visit the distant resting place of their loved ones, they need to negotiate a public transport system that fails them. Often there are no buses to take people to cemeteries and crematoriums outside the area. That is a problem throughout my constituency and a major problem in Skelmersdale, the town with the lowest car ownership levels in the constituency and high levels of poverty and deprivation.
	To get from Skelmersdale to St. Helens is a 15-mile journey that can take one and a half hours, because there is no rail service in Skelmersdale. My constituents are obliged to take a bus to Wigan, a train to St. Helens and then the No. 358 bus to the cemetery. That is a round trip of nearly three hours. Travelling from Burscough to Anfield in Liverpool involves another three-hour round trip that also requires three changes of transport: a bus from Burscough to Ormskirk, a train to Aintree, and then another bus to the cemetery. Surely nobody can believe that that is acceptable.
	West Lancashire district council can and should make a decision now, especially as the most suitable land is ready and waiting and the providers are anxious to help. The council must provide a cemetery or refund the extra costs being borne by individuals and families in West Lancashire who have suffered a bereavement. Those local residents need to be repaid.
	The Human Rights Act 1998 gives a right to life, but as a local Catholic priest said to me:
	"It seems that even in death some are more equal than others in our society. Surely it is a basic human right that one's passing be marked with appropriate dignity and respect and that those who grieve be supported and comforted in a caring and humane fashion."
	A local councillor told me that in West Lancashire it is easier to bury hazardous waste than a loved one. It is time for the council to step up to the plate and makea decision. It should provide a cemetery or meetthe increased costs paid by local residents. Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, which deals with the promotion of well-being, would allow those payments to be made.
	The councillors who are involved in not taking a decision—the right decision—should examine their consciences. Members will not be surprised to know that there are those who believe that the memory of Dick Turpin is alive and well in West Lancashire district council, whose motto appears to be "Your money and your life."